April 10, 2009

As promised I need to review John's Book. John keeps pressing me to do so but I was hesitant since I feel so sorry for him. That aside, I did promise. Which book is that, you ask? That is understandable since John has been at this for quite sometime pushing the same book over and over with many titles.

Jill Maxick the Director of Publicity at Prometheus Books was so very generous and kind to send me a copy of his newest version called "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity." What's needed is a circular-reference tagline of "from the author of Why I Became an Atheist." like Colbert. Didn't Colbert say about his own book though "written so good there is no need for another." John cannot claim that. Anyway moving on.

I came up with an idea (so I thought) and I was going to sell the PDF version online back in October and told John about it in December. He has since removed everything I said which is so typical of John and one of the main frustrations to start my own blog here. He does hate when I speak truth and goes to great lengths to erase what I say. Denial? I will address that later. Although if you go to post comments, the comments are still there. Most recently I said: "Doesn't "pulling a Loftus" mean the same thing as pulling a (Jim) Baker?"

Anyway, I have since scrapped that idea and it lost that idea's luster since I have become too saddened by John's plight. Also, I have since found out that fellow Christians, over at Tektonics, have already thought of that idea, so I don't want to get in the way. Plus, I am sure the most thorough refutation of John, my favorite so far, is Why We're Doubting John.

To help give a history of John's descent into hell, he started a thread at Theology Web on May 26th 2005. Since then entire blogs have been created, like Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight, to directly debunk and refute the arguments of John. He did admit to being raised in a Catholic home so that might be a "tell". So what more can I offer as a refutation for this book?

Also, John filled his book with prior arguments from other people which was quite agonizing, so to discuss those would be pointless. Obviously John has spent a great deal of time in front of Wiki presenting arguments to Christianity from many others. (cheap shot noted) He also showed himself to be quite upset when I recently countered his "YOU can't handle the arguments in my book."

With: "You mean other people's arguments? Those all have been refuted many times over. Why would I spend time presenting other people's arguments for the other people's arguments in your book? Seems to be all a waste of time."

Addressing his Denial, my review.

At the beginning I looked forward to reading this book. I was hoping for a look at the struggle with faith and a personal look into John's head. Maybe even a personal story told that would be comical and enlightening. If you want that then do not read this book. The reading of this book can be better described (By Patty) as reading a microwave manual. It was a huge disappointment and very, very dry. Plus, to read views of others on a plethora of subjects was a let down.

I didn't like it. The beginning creeped me out a great deal. To get people to understand what I am talking about, I will borrow this from Triablogue to highlight the creepiness of John. Unlike Baker, Loftus blames his ex-wife for the affair. Loftus blames his fellow ministers for condemning the affair. Loftus blames Linda for seducing him. Loftus talks about how she accused him of rape, and how most of the folks he knew found her side of the story more credible than his. He also blames God for his affair.

My view or summation on, his labeled, "affair".

I feel that John got very bitter and angry for allegedly raping an individual while still married, to an atheist for that matter (2 Corinthians 6:14?). The Church properly rebuked him outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 and Proverbs 28:5. John admitted expressing his bitterness about this and left the church and subsequently Christianity. John is a good example how from the day that a person breaks God's Law of Sin and Death, God's greatest desire is that they will come to repentance. And so we then go along thinking that we're just living life, but the reality is, that our life's experiences are filled with acts of God trying to bring us back into a relationship with Himself.

John dedicated his life to truth and Christianity and received his entire education, just short of a PhD, in theology. Then he "allegedly" raped a girl and walked away. I assume he still had his student loans to deal with and had to make a living. He continued in the only field he knew, Christianity. Only this time he wanted to make a living off Christianity in an entirely different way, by speaking against it.

Also, in his book he claims that we are taught religion and Christianity by our parents. "The reason they adopt their faith in the first place is because of social and cultural conditions." Even though this is not true, I was raised by an Atheist, he may have a point.

"We just end up believing what we were taught to believe" he claims.

Is that is the main reason to secularize our schools and teach evilution? Thanks for at least admitting to that John. Listen to what an American Humanist named John Dunphy said by correctly prophesying about children back in 1983:

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

There are so many examples of complaints that were so extreme to one side without consideration to understand the points or the arguments. This was one of the main reasons why I wanted to write my own book about this book. Maybe the Publisher would place it right next to John's book. I would name it "Why he should not be an Atheist, a former preacher incorrectly rejects Christianity"™ Of course the cover will be white with black lettering. Jill Maxick, contact me if you want to consider this route. It could be a fun way to double the return.

I guess I can share some of the real comedy that I truly enjoyed in his book. One was on page 113 under the Title of "SCIENCE HAS ALSO DISPLACED GOD", the fourth out of four cosmological displacements: "4. The possibility that there are an infinite number of universes, called a multiverse. God is no longer needed."

Slams it home! That is right folks John thinks that a belief in a multiverse is Science! Then just a few pages later has the nerve to claim "It is no longer possible for anyone seriously to hold the N.T. view of the world. We no longer believe in the three-storied universe."

Just in a multiverse? The stench of hypocrisy is palatable.

In commenting about Genesis 2:2 he claimed "But only a physical being needs to rest." I guess he never considered that God rested, as in completed the task, not that he need a nap. That is why we are today in Jesus rest (Hebrews 4:9-10) This dude is clueless. People, this man claimed "I was a Christian apologist with the equivalent of a PhD degree in philosophy of religion" Pshaw!

Besides being Linda's sex slave and speaking of Girlie-Men. Something else struck my funny bone. He kept alternating the he/she label for himself. He said " Later I found out that none of these initial reasons for believing had any real merit to them" Then later down the paragraph: "at what point can someone say she can make an informed decision about the Christian faith?" (emphasis added) Transvestite sex slave? Just goofing, calm down.

Another hilarious part of this 428 page monstrosity, the man actually only dedicated five (5) pages to answer the question "Why I became an Atheist." That's right he put us through the grueling torture of "filler" to answer the simple question. And what was his answer? A long winded five pages of "I don't know." It started with bitterness, then doubt (The Fox and the Grapes?), and ended with atheism. Where did I hear that before? Didn't I predict that? Am I a prophet to Atheists now, or is John just predictable? Anyway, I viewed these arguments and book as derisory.

At least, according to Tektonics, John has been properly diagnosed. Jim Baker, at least, attempted to repent of his mistakes, not stewing in perpetual denial. And that's tonight's word.

49 comments:

Sorry Dan,If you want to play that game we could also play the game of posting so many links that no one could even think of responding to them all.

What you have done is to insert a Red Herring, which is a literary device to divert atention away from your previous post where you were totally owned by the Debunking Atheists.

Nice try lil buddy.

It has already been established that John Loftus is your eternal enemy, as the reason that you started this blog.

John pinned you down then and he continues to ruffle your feathers. Perhaps you should quit obsessing about him. He is infinitely better at posing an argument than you will ever hope to be.

Now, if I post ten links are you going to critically challenge each of them? Of course not.You are using the ol tsunami approach. This is beyond pathetic.It is merely the fallacy of the appeal to some undefined authority.

You don't even utilize the fallacy very well, because you over-use it to the max.

Do you really think this shows the Fruits of the Spirit? This is the most slimy blog posting I've read in a while. The slime of vindictiveness was positively dripping from the triablogue website you linked to.

"That aside, I did promise. Which book is that, you ask? That is understandable since John has been at this for quite sometime pushing the same book over and over with many titles."

I am sure you will agree that Ray Comfort and Ken Ham do the exact same thing.

I am not a Loftus fan in any sense of the word. It is my opinion that he is employing the exact same tactics that Comfort, et al, employ. And it is apparent that you hate it when others do it to you. Funny, that.

If you want to play that game we could also play the game of posting so many links that no one could even think of responding to them all.

What are you talking about. The review stands alone without clicking any links. The links are mere spicy enhancers. Get a clue.

What you have done is to insert a Red Herring, which is a literary device to divert atention away from your previous post where you were totally owned by the Debunking Atheists.

Get off your horse. Are you claiming that only one of my previous posts was debunked? :)

I am not scared of you and that is what blogs are for. All these posts are there for the record and I will receive any comments to any of them so comment away, tadpole. (snicker)

It has already been established that John Loftus is your eternal enemy, as the reason that you started this blog.

John pinned you down then and he continues to ruffle your feathers.

Not at all, I want the best for John. My feathers were ruffled when I spent time to say something only to have it deleted right away. So you may have a slight point in that regard, but certainly not for "pinning me down."

Now, if I post ten links are you going to critically challenge each of them?

Dan,As my new found son, I recommend that you actually read the link you published, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"Justin Kruger and David DunningCornell University

There are a lot of insights in that article. In fact, it describes yu very well.

You need to actually read and understand the articles that you link to, my son.

Froggie said...I am not a Loftus fan in any sense of the word. It is my opinion that he is employing the exact same tactics that Comfort, et al, employ.

You should at least promote what I'm doing. From what many people tell me I am your best hope. Sorry if you don't like this, but this is what they are saying.

And I don't think you've read enough of what I've written to know anyway. I'm sure you have not read my book. At least you recognize this review as a hatchet job. That's what ignorant Christians like Dan constantly say about what I'm doing because they cannot effectively deal with my arguments. Intelligent Christians are a differnet story. They're using my book in their college classes on apologetics and atheism and even openly expressing that my work will be recognized over the other new atheists since I at least am worthy opponent and that I treat their faith respectfully.

I am personally attcked because I am honest about my personal ugly past. So of course I get upset when they do so and fire back aometimes. You would too. So get off you're high moral horse and bevome informed.

Dan, you are just plain ignorant. This review doesn't understand, much less reason against me. You have to understand the arguments before you can do so. All I see here, like I see on so many sites, are mainly personal ad hominem attacks. Nothing serious takes place here.

If my book is so bad then would you at least try to explain why so many knowledgable people, including a few Christian eductors and philosophers recommend it? What are YOUR credentials to say otherwise?

Dan, I pray you are not actually holding Jim Baker up as an example of genuine Christian repentance. If Baker had truly repented of his "mistakes", he would never show his face on TV again, or claim to be a preacher as he does to this day.

Same with Haggard, and others.True repentance would mean dropping out and anonymously slaving away as a janitor for a Christian soup kitchen in Bangladesh after the great evil they have done in the name of our Lord.

Yet these creeps persist in their attempts to reestablish their ministries.

I've just recently learned about Loftus, but so far, find it to be pretty boring stuff.

Anyway, in the name of Jesus, I pray that your children get raped. Hell is real and your children and their children will pay for what youve done. Seven generation, Dan!Ha Ha! Just some playful teasing to wake up your soul, you evil petty monster.Have a nice day,a fellow Christian,Marcus.

There's no messiah nor martyr complex here with me at at all, you armchair psychologists. Just passion, lots of it. And there's no arragogance, either, just a bit of self-promotion, something you wouldn't understand until or unless you had the same passion.

And I do not take lightly to personal attacks from people who have almost certainly not read much of what I write, nor understand what I'm doing. But others do.

Listen if you don't have the same passion nor the same goals then please don't discourage those of us who do. I just saw Bill Maher's movie Religulous and it's quite the motivator for me.

And there's no arragogance [sic], either, just a bit of self-promotion...

He must've been in a hurry again...

Look, John, I used to frequent DC all the time, and even participated, but ever since your book deal was realized, it's been pretty much nothing but blatant self-promotion. I understand you want your message to reach its intended audience, and I understand that an appearance on The Daily Show is unlikely, but I, for one, got very turned off by the endless promotion on DC. That, and when you temporarily disabled comments by non-contributors.

As much as I loathe the message of the Dans, they're also pretty amusing, and friendly enough, or friendly often enough. Granted, Dan's "review" of your book is weak, even to one who hasn't, and won't, read it. Even so, your demeanor here leaves much to be desired.

From what many people tell me I am your best hope.

No arragogance? It walks like arragogance, quacks like arragogance...

If you're actually serious here, you need to ditch your cheer squad, and start mingling with people who don't hang on your every word. Perhaps I'm just uninformed, but I cannot see your book as being so fantastically important that philosophers and theologians are fawning over it, considering again that the only place one can find it promoted is on your blog...

I guess I could be wrong, and if so, feel free to show us, with links that lead away from DC, where your book is so regarded.

Best of luck with the proselytizing, as our conclusions agree, but we differ in our methods. Oh well.

"Unlike Baker, Loftus blames his ex-wife for the affair. Loftus blames his fellow ministers for condemning the affair. Loftus blames Linda for seducing him. Loftus talks about how she accused him of rape, and how most of the folks he knew found her side of the story more credible than his. He also blames God for his affair."

That's John right there in a nutshell. There is a wealth of TWeb posts to prove this point.

If you were truly asking for a review of your book by non-other but Dan here. Well, I cannot say I will run and buy it.

Anyway, I have found your blog to be quite the useless thing. Seems to be mostly a news channel for you and your comrades (I will be here, I will be there, the new book is out). At least that was it last time I saw it. Which was long ago. So, you should not be surprised that you do not get positive feedback from other atheists.

Now, having both Dan here, and "Truth Be Told" being "inspired" by your blog makes you something of a success (and puts them in much worse shape).

Frankly, I am sick and freaking tired of you making a career out of condemning Loftus' divorce. It's history. It happens to many Christians and non-Christians alike.

Froggie, if you took the time and pulled your head out of your ass you'd realize that Loftus' divorce is not the central idea behind my rebuttals to his arguments. That section of Dan's post I quoted is not to refer to John's divorce. It's referring to how he justifies himself for EVERYTHING. Comprehende?

The central idea behind my responses deals with Loftus' inability, or disregard for actually trying to engage real issues that deal with his favorite subject, Christianity.

Another thing to take into consideration is that John's blog is titled rather inappropriately. John knows his blog isn't about general Christianity and has admitted this. Why name it "Debunking Christianity"? Be more intellectually honest than this. Title the blog, say, "Debunking Evangelism" or "Debunking Evangelical Christianity", any of those work. John has neither the courtesy to let himself off his high horse, nor the capacity, to handle general Christian theology. Has he ever tried tackling Catholcism, sophisticated forms of theology and educated clergy? Nope. Most if not all of his arguments deal with fundamentalism. Anyone can argue against that, but it's only one faction of Christianity. That's like arguing that all fruits are apples, instead of vice versa. Get the point, now?

You might want to go after Holding about this anyways. He talks about it much more than I do or ever have (and in case you haven't noticed, the reason why it has been brought up is not because Loftus got divorced but because of his inconsistency, which I'm sure you'll agree he has plenty of).

Now, having both Dan here, and "Truth Be Told" being "inspired" by your blog makes you something of a success (and puts them in much worse shape).

I'm not understanding your logic. Have you been hitting the bong lately?

1) I was blogging about Debunking Christianity LONG before Dan started this website. Observe: http://debunkingcrap.blogspot.com

2) If you take the time to look, Debunking Crap is obviously a parody website. Parodies usually get formulated on the flaws or outright stupidity of their original counterparts, right? Does Tina Fey parodying Sarah Palin somehow destroy the credibility of Tina Fey? What about God Hates Figs, etc?

3) Parodying is limited in its scope because it can only address a point to a certain extent. Debunking Loftus was created to actually respond to Loftus' arguments (partly because I can and I feel like doing it because I wouldn't be allowed otherwise to do so on Debunking Christianity).

4) Take a gander at some of the recent posts on the DL blog. Look especially for the one on the April Fools Day prank John got duped into, and then make your judgement of who gets hurt more by these blog feuds.

Anyhoo, I don't want to start a major flame war here. Just thought I get that out because people usually misinterpret my statements and misconstrue my intentions or they assume that I'm a Christian and so and so forth...

At least, according to Tektonics, John has been properly diagnosed. Sorry to Jim Baker, he at least repented of his mistakes, not stewing in perpetual denial. And that's tonight's word.Sounds like the same affliction you exhibit when you talk about evolution...

By the way, with Robert Turkel and his site, you do know that the guy has no formal training in either apologetics or "bible studies" right? Not very qualified, if you ask me.

At least when I talk about the bible, I try and use actual authorities.

To the people who seem to spend their entire lives following this guy trying to harass him. He put out a book or two. We Christians put out hundreds of thousands of books. We have thousands of radio stations and TV stations. Stop being so petty.If you think he's got a messiah complex, it's because he has groups of people specifically targeting him.

John's response was dripping with Messianic complexity, even with some martyrdom stylings.Does John ever make posts about the times that he went to jail, supposedly for either preaching his beliefs or because "god" wanted him to witness in jail or something?

You're the one with the martyr complex, Dani'El, along with a host of other psychological issues.

By the way, with Robert Turkel and his site, you do know that the guy has no formal training in either apologetics or "bible studies" right? Not very qualified, if you ask me.

*Ahem* http://www.tektonics.org/jphforever.html

Actually, a degree in Library Science does qualify someone to be a professional researcher. There has never been a time Holding has claimed to be a primary source. So whether or not they would be seen as "credible" by people like you does not deter from the fact that he does cite sources just like any professional researcher. So that doesn't make Holding an expert, but it does make him a collective researcher for material on these subjects.

You're the one with the martyr complex, Dani'El, along with a host of other psychological issues.

Anyone who says that in defense of Loftus surely has no idea who the man is.

Now, having both Dan here, and "Truth Be Told" being "inspired" by your blog makes you something of a success (and puts them in much worse shape).

That was witty and funny, a double barrel of Ouch. Please don't give John all the credit though, his balloon would burst without reason. I was thrown out of many atheist forums such as Friendly Atheists, Ex-Christians and Atheist Experience, Deep thoughts... I can't say that I blame them. I can press pretty hard, like a parent, for them to change their ways. Yes, John included. I act playful at times but this is a serious subject. If they are wrong then they all are going down hard. That is something I cannot stand idly by and watch. I will do whatever I can to stop all of you from that destiny.

Hopefully something great will happen that will convert most of you on the spot someday here soon and we can all have a cool beverage in Heaven laughing about these good times. I will beg God for that result.

I'm sorry Pvblius, do you have two different Blogger accounts or something going on?

Thanks for the explanation. I think you should probably compare Loftus and Dan one on one with each other and see how the two come out against the pros and cons. I can't think of any other non-politician figure (besides Ward Churchill) that is as dishonest, misrepresenting, and as shallow as John is. I'm obviously holding out for the future, but John's cyclic patterns of behavior give me much room to doubt...

Holy cow! Has everyone read Dani's website. He sounds like a mental case! I know people have told him this before. Satan jumping on his car! EVERYONE who even looks at him is controlled by Satan and out to get him! Encounters with Prince Charles!

And San Fransisco will be destroyed when he leaves it! The end will come in June! Awesome, not long to wait for that one!If this John guy is as entertainingly insane as Dani, I want to see his site and read the book. But I doubt he possibly could be.If Dani would listen to me and I was a nicer person, I'd say "Look, the demon attacks will slow down and cease once you begin taking medication. I'm sure Jesus doesn't want you to live your life thinking monsters are around every corner. Get help. "But what can I say "I'm not a nicer person but Jesus forgives"Oh, and Dan is one dumb bastard.

You must be joking...do you really think that that is the biggest criticism of the man? Is Robert Turkel so stupid as to actually think that?

Actually, a degree in Library Science does qualify someone to be a professional researcher. There has never been a time Holding has claimed to be a primary source. So whether or not they would be seen as "credible" by people like you does not deter from the fact that he does cite sources just like any professional researcher.Does that mean he's honest about it, or doesn't ever distort them?

So that doesn't make Holding an expert, but it does make him a collective researcher for material on these subjects.But, not an expert, though. While that doesn't disqualify anyone from talking about anything, I'd rather go to the actual experts when I can.

You're the one with the martyr complex, Dani'El, along with a host of other psychological issues.Anyone who says that in defense of Loftus surely has no idea who the man is.I'm not "defending" anyone. I'm pointing out that Dani'El is the last person on this blog to talk about any "martyr" activities of anyone else.

I don't know anything of Loftus, and since he's posted here, I'll let him defend himself.

This is why, from the link right above:I think Matthew in particular nailed him on his ridiculous attempts to belittle the intelligence of scholars who specialize in ancient history/Biblical scholarship, when Holding only has a degree in library science. (For example, he says Bart Ehrman "needs to take a Metzger reading." Ehrman has not only read Metzger, he studied under him.)

Things like your answer to my post make me like you despite you can understand something at one time, and then completely forget about it and go back to the old and debunked arguments. I think we can be good friends.

Uh...Reynold, I was simply answering your use of "Robert Turkel", not making a statement that the name is the biggest argument against him. Although in some cases, it certaintly is.

Those links you've provided have been answered by Holding many times. If you interacted with him, you'd know that there isn't a single criticism of Holding which has probably gotten passed hims awareness. After all, he's a researcher. :D

Oh, and the name change was not because of prison inmates, specifically. It's also his birth name.

Those links you've provided have been answered by Holding many times. If you interacted with him, you'd know that there isn't a single criticism of Holding which has probably gotten passed hims awareness. After all, he's a researcher. :DI've read both his stuff, and his critics...at least that last link from what I've read, Turkel/Holding does sometimes ignore points made against him.

At least some of the guys I mentioned actually link to and respond to Turkels' responses.

So, I don't think what you said is accurate.

As for his name and credentials, I was just pointing out a problem that I have with him.

Inspiration

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan----"A great many of those who debunk traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process." ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1944)----"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon----”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” ~Martin Luther----”Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.” ~Paul Manata----Until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner and brings him to repentance, his presuppositions will remain unaltered. And as long as the unbeliever's presuppositions are unchanged a proper acceptance and understanding of the good news of Christ's historical resurrection will be impossible. ~Dr. Bahnsen----“One of the most pernicious falsehoods ever to be almost universally accepted is that the scientific method is the only reliable way to truth” ~Professor Richard H. Bube, Stanford University----Rules of atheism"Science":

Theists will consider natural causes.Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Theism posits an eternal mind followed by contingent matter.

Atheism posits matter followed by contingent minds.----"Evolution is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their brainwaves" ~Bevets

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end" ~I. L. Cohen----from City of Angels

Seth: You're an excellent doctor.Maggie: How do you know?Seth: I have a feeling.Maggie: That's pretty flimsy evidence.Seth: Close your eyes. It's just for a moment.[touches her hand]Seth: What am I doing?Maggie: You're... touching me.Seth: Touch. How do you know?Maggie: Because, I feel it.Seth: You should trust that. You don't trust it enough.

"Ask the poor. They will tell you who the Christians are." ~Mahatma Gandhi

"Some want to live within the sound of church or chapel bells, I want to run a rescue shop within the yard of hell." ~C.T. Studd

"You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." ~C.S. Lewis

"Waiting is not wasting when you are waiting on the Lord. God works while we wait." ~unknown

"Since the bible defines a Christian as one who knows God, would you consider yourself to have been a Christian according to the biblical definition?" ~Thomas Bridges

Fun Quotes

Quasar: That's like saying: "look, none of the grasshoppers evolved fire-resistant skin when I put the flamethrower to them! Evolution must be false!"